Want to buy the Glock that lost the Army handgun competition?

[Claven2]

Is that so? Below is a link to the GAO report. Please point out where it says that endurance testing was stopped at the halfway point, that the Sig had "nearly twice as many stoppages", or that Sig was "throwing groups roughly double that of Glock"?

https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/685461.pdf

Page 11, footnote 13.:

Under the factor 1 reliability evaluation, Sig Sauer’s full-sized handgun had a higher stoppage rate than Glock’s handgun, and there may have been other problems with the weapon’s accuracy. AR, Tab 3, SSDD, at 12. Due to the Army’s redactions of the agency report, the results of Sig Sauer’s compact handgun test are unknown.

So in other words, the Glock performed better - but GAO couldn't get anyone at Aberdeen to fess up to how much better because they redacted the report to GAO. (i.e. classic "cover your ass"). It would be significant or GAO would not have printed it.

Here is the full GAO page, not the pdf you selectively posted. Glock's complaint was only dismissed in part.
https://www.gao.gov/products/B-414401

Glock, Inc., of Smyrna, Georgia, protests the decision by the Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, not to award it a contract under request for proposals (RFP) No. W15QKN-15-R-0002, which was issued for the evaluation and purchase of a modular handgun system (MHS). The protester alleges that the RFP did not permit the agency to make fewer than two awards after the first phase of the evaluation, and that the award after that evaluation to only one entity, Sig Sauer, Inc., of Newington, New Hampshire, was therefore improper. Glock also asserts that the Army evaluated proposals unequally by improperly waiving a key subfactor evaluation for Sig Sauer. The protester further challenges the agency's evaluations of its own technical proposal and Sig Sauer's price proposal.
We deny the protest in part and dismiss in part.

And then GAO gets into the real reason why they chose SIG in their rebuttal to Glock:

The advantage of the Sig Sauer proposal is increased when the license rights and production manufacturing factors are brought into consideration. [. . .] The price analysis shows that the Sig Sauer total evaluated price is $102,705,394 less than the Glock total evaluated price, making the Sig Sauer proposal overall the Best Value to the Government.

In other words, price trumped raw performance. That and the ability for the US Gov to access all the Intellectual Property (IP) and manufacture the gun wherever they want if they are unhappy with SIG.

Under Early Warfighter Acceptance Factor - Glock scores "good", Sig scores "acceptable". Acceptable is the lower score of the two. Sig got a higher score on technical based ONLY on the ergonomic grip panels. Again, this was the Aberdeen crew. In troop trials (factor 2) the warfighters (actual soldiers) much preferred the Glock. Go figure.

From the GAO summary, testing was not completed on the compact variants of the MHS, and also, the 12500 rounds fired is not what the RFP cited - the bid eval plan was supposed to be 35,000 rounds:

Unlike the full-size reliability evaluation, which used 12,500 rounds to achieve a 90 percent confidence level of 2,000 MRBS, the compact gun reliability evaluation was limited to a total of 1,500 rounds

Note: MRBS = Mean Rounds Between Stoppages.

and

Under section H’s reliability subfactor, handguns were to undergo extensive reliability testing, “using up to 35,000 rounds.” RFP at 298, ¶¶ H.5.1, H.5.2.2.1.

Then this little gem:

the Army ignored the evaluation provided for in the RFP and applied an unstated evaluation criterion by requiring the MRBS test results to achieve a 90 percent confidence level. Application of this unstated evaluation criterion rendered the results of the compact weapon reliability unusable. Then, the Army waived the evaluation criterion on the basis that it lacked usable data. The Army denies that it waived the subfactor, claiming that the subfactor was merely “non-rate[ed].”

Let me translate this garblygook as I work in the industry and have seen this before:

"The handgun we wanted to buy because it weas cheaper and gave us the farm on IP was not doing well in the MRBS test, so we threw out the results by deciding it would be a "non-rated" (read: will not form part of the score) test."

Here is GAO's take on this very odd behavior at Aberdeen:

The record shows that the Army waived the evaluation of the compact handgun reliability testing subfactor after applying an unstated evaluation criterion. As a result, the Army did not evaluate the reliability test results of Sig Sauer’s compact weapon in accordance with the solicitation. Nevertheless, we find no prejudice to Glock.

So in other words, they agree the Army didn;t bother to rate reliability, but because the other test factors were rated (i.e. price and intellectual property) evenly, Glock's claim has no merit.

Feel free to read the report you linked to yourself. I had already read it before posting. It's a magnus opus in how bureaucrats choose cheap over effective and then legally wrangled their way around a legal complain alleging just that.

 

[Claven2]

The SIG M17 has both a different trigger and a manual safety, so unlike it's general public counterpart it is drop safe.

I have no idea what the M17 trigger looks like, but the P320 issue would not have surfaced in the standard Aberdeen test in current use.
There is a mil standard for drop tests.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a481861.pdf

See Section 4.1

b. 1.5 Meter (5 Ft) Drop.
(1) Use three serviceable weapons for this test. Load each weapon with a primed but
otherwise empty cartridge case to assess the possibility of accidental firing. Place the safety
switch in the Safe position.
(2) Drop each weapon one time in each of the following orientations:
1 Major axis horizontal (normal firing orientation).
2 Major axis vertical, butt down.
3 Major axis vertical, muzzle down.
4 Major axis 45o
from vertical, butt down.
5 Major axis 45o
from vertical, muzzle down.
(3) Drop the weapons onto a clean, level, concrete surface. They may be dropped by a
mechanical means or by manually releasing them in the required orientation. Verify the proper
impact orientation by video recording (preferred), or by careful visual observation, or
photographic records.

So in other words, the guns aren't tested with safety off. Which is stupid. In combat or live fire training, the safety isn't on, and that's when the gun is likely to be accidentally dropped. The industry is abuzz over whether this testing methodology should be altered. I believe it should.

And for the ppl who think i'm a glock fanboi - I'm not. I have one glock, an old Gen2. I'm not on the glock train any more than I'm on the Sig train as I have a couple Sig's - just not a P320.

 

[Claven2]

Glock and it's fans are kinda sore loosers , reminds me a bit about democrats in US in 2016 elections

It's a lot like that. Hillary won more votes but lost the election.

Glock built a better performing pistol but lost the competition.

Neither read the rulebook very clearly, it seems.

 

[Big Bad]

The manual safety is a very nice addition .

[Flame suit on] I agree.

I also like the full size grip / short barrel combo. And leave it to Glock to say "new and improved, now without finger grooves!" When they never should have been there in the first place.

I am not prepared to listen to such nonsense. The Glock is make for the working man and woman who only needs one safety and that resides in the trigger of the gun and the trigger finger of the user, which should and can and do operate as one unit.

 

[Claven2]

I am not prepared to listen to such nonsense. The Glock is make for the working man and woman who only needs one safety and that resides in the trigger of the gun and the trigger finger of the user, which should and can and do operate as one unit.

I don't need another safety on any of my guns, but the army requirements are a different matter. There is more at play here - the US Army has had basically the same manual of arms since 1911. The M9's controls are so close to the 1911A1 it replaced that the training manuals, pistol drills, and instruction materials really only needed minor tweaks.

I expect the Army's desire for a safety is "because they can" and it requires them to change fewer of the things they have been doing since before any of us were born.

 

[rkm456]

I have no idea what the M17 trigger looks like, but the P320 issue would not have surfaced in the standard Aberdeen test in current use.
There is a mil standard for drop tests.

I'm only aware because when the news broke and people started the suggestion that it would cost them the U.S. Army contract, then it came out that the Army guns had a different trigger mechanism to begin with and were unaffected.

 

[rkm456]

The new parts(to include a new striker and sear, a new trigger/trigger bar and a milled trigger disconnect surface in the slide) on the MHS 320's are what should have been offered via a RECALL for the consumer market. Instead SIG let the public rot with dangerous defective guns until the news got out, now they're playing damage control and pretending like they actually give a sh*t.. As you said, the 320 has been available for 4 years and this is what SIG releases? They claim 10 years of design and research and spending 4% of the revenue/budget on R&D and we get a sig 250 with a striker mechanism that isn't drop safe... Nothing to brag about there.

As for the manual safety, that's a bullsh*t excuse. Is it possible that a pistol might be dropped with the safety DISENGAGED???? Kind of the reason 1911's have a.... DROP SAFETY in the form of a grip safety. Drop testing a firearm with the safety on is retarded. It had better not fire with the safety engaged and that safety best not disengage on impact either. The real test of a design is dropping it in a ready to fire condition with safety OFF. But hey, SIG passed all the mickey mouse tests put forth by SAAMI and the military so it must be good to go.

I'm not quite sure why you seem so angry about this, but yes, SIG passed all industry testing, period, end of story. As I've said previously, if you believe that the testing should be changed I'd agree with you, but you can't fault someone for meeting requirements.

Regarding the manual safety, I'm not quite sure how it's an "excuse" I was simply pointing out that it exists. On a related note, the grip safety on a lot of 1911's will depress if dropped at the angle the 320's were being dropped at.

 

[Claven2]

I'm not quite sure why you seem so angry about this, but yes, SIG passed all industry testing, period, end of story. As I've said previously, if you believe that the testing should be changed I'd agree with you, but you can't fault someone for meeting requirements.

Regarding the manual safety, I'm not quite sure how it's an "excuse" I was simply pointing out that it exists. On a related note, the grip safety on a lot of 1911's will depress if dropped at the angle the 320's were being dropped at.

Regarding the 1911 specifically, if dropped on the tail the grip safety could depress depending on the shape (there are so many variations), but the slide safety would enable it to pass the published test.

Most SF guns should pass the drop test the P320 fails, no sweat. The issue with the P320 is the heavy machined steel trigger had too much inertia for the light trigger spring SIG chose to ship the guns with. The weight of the trigger itself trips the sear and fires the gun.

A polumer, skeletonized or even lighter material (aluminum?) trigger would likely fix the P320 issues. For example, putting in an APEX trigger seems to fix it all by itself according to most basement internet testing (?)

 

[OntarioTim]

I am very familiar with the public procurement process. In an evaluation like this overall cost must be factored in. It doesn't matter how good product A is over product B if product A is several times the unit price of B. It is exactly the same reasoning of why you purchased a Chevrolet car over a Ferrari; the Ferrari is a much better performer, but, cost considerably more. You bought the Chev because it met your requirements for less money!
In public spending you better damned we'll have your ducks in a row if you are not going to accept the lowest bid; the public doesn't care about performance, only how much of their money you spent!

 

[Phat Eagle]

Glock with an external safety: no thanks!

 

[VinceDrake]

Forgive me for being dense, but I am failing to see where this version of the venerable Glock is modular?

For all I can tell from the limited pics, it seems to be a bog-standard 2 pin Glock Fire Control group, A la Gen 2, now with a bonus thumb-safety.

Not to be inflammatory, but I'm pretty sure I can see the where the serial number is molded into the dust cover. Why would it be allowed into competition in the first place?

 

[Claven2]

Forgive me for being dense, but I am failing to see where this version of the venerable Glock is modular?

For all I can tell from the limited pics, it seems to be a bog-standard 2 pin Glock Fire Control group, A la Gen 2, now with a bonus thumb-safety.

Not to be inflammatory, but I'm pretty sure I can see the where the serial number is molded into the dust cover. Why would it be allowed into competition in the first place?

The lower is the MHS gun. The modular part was different length uppers.

 

[Claven2]

I am very familiar with the public procurement process. In an evaluation like this overall cost must be factored in. It doesn't matter how good product A is over product B if product A is several times the unit price of B. It is exactly the same reasoning of why you purchased a Chevrolet car over a Ferrari; the Ferrari is a much better performer, but, cost considerably more. You bought the Chev because it met your requirements for less money!
In public spending you better damned we'll have your ducks in a row if you are not going to accept the lowest bid; the public doesn't care about performance, only how much of their money you spent!

That's true. I'd bet my left nut that Sig under-bid it on purpose and hopes to make it up in later orders once the army is too committed to change horses.

But they should be careful. They gave up IP. You could see the us army competing the technical data package and getting the second batch made by FN, colt or even Glock USA!! Lol...

 

[capp325]

Page 11, footnote 13.:

I repeat: where does it say that Sig had "nearly twice as many stoppages"? For all we know, Sig could have had one more stoppage out of thousands of rounds fired. And where does it say it say anything about groups? Where does it say that testing was stopped at "halfway point"? I could care less which company gets the US contact, but please stop spreading this fake news BS.

 

[maxman1]

That's true. I'd bet my left nut that Sig under-bid it on purpose and hopes to make it up in later orders once the army is too committed to change horses.

This wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, considering SIG lost the original M9 contract to Beretta by being under-bid on the magazines for a lower package cost (the 226 was cheaper per pistol than the 92F, but the magazines were more).

 

[Kidd X]

I'm not quite sure why you seem so angry about this, but yes, SIG passed all industry testing, period, end of story. As I've said previously, if you believe that the testing should be changed I'd agree with you, but you can't fault someone for meeting requirements.

Regarding the manual safety, I'm not quite sure how it's an "excuse" I was simply pointing out that it exists. On a related note, the grip safety on a lot of 1911's will depress if dropped at the angle the 320's were being dropped at.

Meeting the mickey mouse standards is one thing. Spouting your mouth that you spent ten years and 4% of your earnings/budget on R&D only to come up with a pistol that fails the most basic drop tests that a 100+ year old 1911 can pass is not something you brag about. "Hey look here everyone, we passed a total joke of a drop test standard, and we spent ten years and millions getting there.... Oops, it's really not a safe design, in fact we've already changed it for the military but don't give a sh*t about the public guns that have been around for 4 years.." Making claims of great investments of time and resources when your pistol is unsafe is foolish talk. SIG invested very little time and resources into the 320. It's a SIG 250 with a striker mech and if you're telling me it took them ten years to figure out a striker mechanism that would fit into the slide of a SIG 250 then SIG definitely hires special needs employees.

The safety is an excuse that shouldn't even be mentioned when discussing drop testing. As for the grip safety on 1911's you're right I'm sure they can depress, but will the pistol fire? Nope, they have firing pin blocks and the half #### notch to grab the hammer should the sear slip. If you haven't had a look yet Omaha Outdoors has a second video where they drop test multiple makes and models to include 1911's and none discharge.

Regarding the 1911 specifically, if dropped on the tail the grip safety could depress depending on the shape (there are so many variations), but the slide safety would enable it to pass the published test.

Most SF guns should pass the drop test the P320 fails, no sweat. The issue with the P320 is the heavy machined steel trigger had too much inertia for the light trigger spring SIG chose to ship the guns with. The weight of the trigger itself trips the sear and fires the gun.

A polumer, skeletonized or even lighter material (aluminum?) trigger would likely fix the P320 issues. For example, putting in an APEX trigger seems to fix it all by itself according to most basement internet testing (?)

Wrong, the trigger on the 320 does NOT move fully to the rear and release the striker. The trigger depresses only far enough to disengage the firing pin/striker safety. The impact allows the sear to slip/disengage from the striker and thus fire the pistol. This is why SIG is replacing the striker mechanism the trigger/trigger bar and milling the slide for a trigger disconnect tab.

 

[Kidd X]

I repeat: where does it say that Sig had "nearly twice as many stoppages"? For all we know, Sig could have had one more stoppage out of thousands of rounds fired. And where does it say it say anything about groups? Where does it say that testing was stopped at "halfway point"? I could care less which company gets the US contact, but please stop spreading this fake news BS.

Well I didn't see any verbage about double the stoppage rate but it was at a higher RATE, not a greater NUMBER of stoppages. Rate would indicate a percentage of stoppages per X number of rounds.

Although under sub section H it does indicate the testing was to consume 35,000 rounds and yet the full size guns stopped at 12,500 or about 36% of what was outlined in the RFP guideline. The testing was stopped LESS than half way through the prescribed round count, and the compacts were halted at 1500 rounds or 4% of the prescribed round count. That doesn't matter anyway as the data was omitted from scoring. The Army redacted(big word for EDITED) the content of the GAO report which should tell you that something smells a foul here. If the test was fair and equally applied then the results should be published in their entirety.

 

[rkm456]

Meeting the mickey mouse standards is one thing. Spouting your mouth that you spent ten years and 4% of your earnings/budget on R&D only to come up with a pistol that fails the most basic drop tests that a 100+ year old 1911 can pass is not something you brag about. "Hey look here everyone, we passed a total joke of a drop test standard, and we spent ten years and millions getting there.... Oops, it's really not a safe design, in fact we've already changed it for the military but don't give a sh*t about the public guns that have been around for 4 years.." Making claims of great investments of time and resources when your pistol is unsafe is foolish talk. SIG invested very little time and resources into the 320. It's a SIG 250 with a striker mech and if you're telling me it took them ten years to figure out a striker mechanism that would fit into the slide of a SIG 250 then SIG definitely hires special needs employees.

The safety is an excuse that shouldn't even be mentioned when discussing drop testing. As for the grip safety on 1911's you're right I'm sure they can depress, but will the pistol fire? Nope, they have firing pin blocks and the half #### notch to grab the hammer should the sear slip. If you haven't had a look yet Omaha Outdoors has a second video where they drop test multiple makes and models to include 1911's and none discharge.

I'm the first to admit that at this time that I'm not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to 1911's, but I believe the series 70 type guns (as carried by the U.S. military) lacked a firing pin block, and that they will go off if dropped at the correct angle. Wasn't that the reason behind developing the much maligned series 80 FPB system?

 

[Kidd X]

I'm the first to admit that at this time that I'm not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to 1911's, but I believe the series 70 type guns (as carried by the U.S. military) lacked a firing pin block, and that they will go off if dropped at the correct angle. Wasn't that the reason behind developing the much maligned series 80 FPB system?

The risk was there but I don't know of any stories or data to support the theory. I too am not a 1911 guy so I can't say with certaintly what or why the series 80 came to be.

 

[Canuck44]

I expect the Army's desire for a safety is "because they can" and it requires them to change fewer of the things they have been doing since before any of us were born.

No you could not be more wrong. It is simply to reduce the number of accidents. It is no more mysterious than that. Today's soldiers get a great deal of money invested in them and no employer wants to lose expensive employees to accidental discharges. Strkier fired pistols, including Glocks, M&P's and SIG 320's have no mechanism to prevent a discharge when the trigger is pulled inadvertently - eg. google Glock Leg and see what you get, Adding a safety makes sense in the environment the US Army finds itself in. Oddly enough the folks that are responsible for these decisions and who run the US Army are trained professionals and they do know what they are doing despite what you may hear from some of the couch commandos on this forum.

Incidentally I did read in a SIG NEWS release where the US Army pistols were not affected by the drop test issues found in pistols sold to the civilian market. Some here might want to look into why that is the case.

Take Care

Bob